ABSTRACT: Background: Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the main intoxicating component of cannabis, can cause cognitive and psychomotor impairment. Whether this impairment is still present many hours or even days after THC use requires clarification. Possible "next day" effects are of major significance in safety-sensitive workplaces. We therefore conducted a systematic review of studies investigating the "next day" effects of THC. METHODS: Studies that measured performance on safety-sensitive tasks (e.g., driving, flying) and/or neuropsychological tests >8 h after THC (or cannabis) use using interventional designs were identified by searching two online databases from inception until March 28, 2022. Risk of bias (RoB) was evaluated using the relevant Cochrane tools. Results were described in terms of whether THC had a significant effect on performance relative to the primary comparator (i.e., placebo or baseline, as appropriate). RESULTS: Twenty studies (n=458) involving 345 performance tests were reviewed. Most studies administered a single dose of THC (median [interquartile range]: 16 [11-26] mg) and assessed performance between >12 and 24 h post-treatment. N=209/345 tests conducted across 16 published studies showed no "next day" effects of THC. Nine of these 16 studies used randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled designs. Half (N=8) had "some" RoB, and half (N=8) had a "high" RoB. Notably, N=88 of these 209 tests failed to demonstrate "acute" (i.e., <8 h post-treatment) THC-induced impairment. N=12/345 tests conducted across five published studies indicated negative (i.e., impairing) "next day" effects of THC. None of these five studies used randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled designs and all were published >18 years ago (four, >30 years ago). Three had "some" RoB, and two had a "high" RoB. A further N=121/345 tests indicated "unclear" "next day" effects of THC with insufficient information provided to assess outcomes. The remaining N=3/345 tests indicated positive (i.e., enhancing) "next day" effects of THC. CONCLUSIONS: Some lower quality studies have reported "next day" effects of THC on cognitive function and safety-sensitive tasks. However, most studies, including some of higher quality, have found no such effect. Overall, it appears that there is limited scientific evidence to support the assertion that cannabis use impairs "next day" performance. Further studies involving improved methodologies are required to better address this issue.
INTRODUCTION: Cannabis is a widely used substance in pregnancy, yet there is a paucity of literature addressing the neuro-behavioural consequences for prenatally exposed children. Our systematic review synthesizes currently available data for the impact of prenatal cannabis use on offspring intelligence and cognitive functioning.
METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, CINAHL, and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched. Observational studies comparing prenatal cannabis use to controls were included. Offspring neuro-behavioural outcomes were grouped in prespecified domains of (1) intelligence and (2) cognitive functioning. Random-effect models were performed for meta-analyses when at least three studies reported the same outcome. All others were summarized qualitatively. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations) framework was used to assess evidence certainty.
RESULTS: Of the 1982 reviewed studies (n = 523,107 patients), 28 were included. Significant heterogeneity and cohort redundancy limited meta-analysis. Very low-quality evidence from pooled analyses showed no significant associations between prenatal cannabis exposure and attention [standardized mean difference = -0.27 (95% CI = -0.60 to 0.07)], global intelligence quotient [-0.16 (-0.42 to 0.10)], reading [-0.05 (-0.29 to 0.20)], written comprehension [-0.09 (-0.40 to 0.22)], spelling [-0.04 (-0.26 to 0.17)], and mathematics [-0.01 (-0.15 to 0.13)]. No significant associations were found between prenatal cannabis exposure for all other outcomes. Individual studies reported significant differences between the heavy use groups and non-exposed, although this did not prove to be significant when outcomes were pooled.
CONCLUSIONS: The current review did not find a clear association between prenatal cannabis use and offspring neuro-behavioural outcomes. However, evidence was low quality and heterogenous. Further prospective investigation is needed to elucidate any potential association between prenatal cannabis use and long-term neuro-developmental outcomes.
IMPORTANCE: While some studies have found an association between marijuana use and adverse neonatal outcomes, results have not been consistent across all trials.
OBJECTIVE: To assess available data on neonatal outcomes in marijuana-exposed pregnancies.
DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Medline, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched from each database's inception until August 16, 2021.
STUDY SELECTION: All interventional and observational studies that included pregnant women who were exposed to marijuana compared with pregnant women who were not exposed to marijuana and that reported neonatal outcomes were included.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Reporting followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guideline. Data were extracted by 2 authors for all outcomes, which were pooled using a random-effects model as mean difference or risk ratio (RR) and 95% CI. Data were analyzed from August through September 2021.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: All outcomes were formulated prior to data collection. Outcomes included incidence of birth weight less than 2500 g, small for gestational age (defined as less than the fifth percentile fetal weight for gestational age), rate of preterm delivery (defined as before 37 weeks' gestation), gestational age at time of delivery, birth weight, incidence of neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission, Apgar score at 1 minute, Apgar score at 5 minutes, incidence of an Apgar score less than 7 at 5 minutes, fetal head circumference, and fetal length.
RESULTS: Among 16 studies including 59 138 patients, there were significant increases in 7 adverse neonatal outcomes among women who were exposed to marijuana during pregnancy vs those who were not exposed during pregnancy. These included increased risk of birth weight less than 2500 g (RR, 2.06 [95% CI, 1.25 to 3.42]; P = .005), small for gestational age (RR, 1.61 [95% CI, 1.44 to 1.79]; P < .001), preterm delivery (RR, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.16 to 1.42]; P < .001), and NICU admission (RR, 1.38 [95% CI, 1.18 to 1.62]; P < .001), along with decreased mean birth weight (mean difference, -112.30 [95% CI, -167.19 to -57.41] g; P < .001), Apgar score at 1 minute (mean difference, -0.26 [95% CI, -0.43 to -0.09]; P = .002), and infant head circumference (mean difference, -0.34 [95% CI, -0.63 to -0.06] cm; P = .02).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This study found that women exposed to marijuana in pregnancy were at a significantly increased risk of some adverse neonatal outcomes. These findings suggest that increasing awareness about these risks may be associated with improved outcomes.
Despite research advances, it remains unclear if long-term, regular cannabis use harms cognition once intoxication has passed. Our meta-analysis aimed to investigate the association between cognitive functioning and long-term (mean ≥2 years), regular (mean ≥4 days/week), recreational cannabis use in adults during abstinence (mean ≥12 hr). We searched PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus, and Dissertations and Theses International for English-language articles from the date each database began until May 22, 2019. We identified study inclusion by completing abstract and full text screening using predetermined criteria and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines. We classified cognitive performance into 6 cognitive domains (attention, executive function, learning and memory, decision making, information processing, and working memory), and included a global measure. Effect sizes were calculated for each domain using univariate meta-analyses. There were 30 studies with a total 849 participants who used cannabis (M = 30.7-years-old, SD = 5.5-years-old) and 764 control participants (M = 30.3-years-old, SD = 5.9-years-old). Cannabis was associated with significant but small-magnitude deficits in executive function, learning and memory, and global cognition, while decision making had moderate deficits. There were small-magnitude and nonsignificant group differences for information processing, working memory, and attention. Cannabis use duration, age of onset, and prolonged abstinence (≥25 days) did not influence outcomes, except group differences in executive function were nonsignificant in analyses of prolonged abstinence. Our results suggest that long-term, regular cannabis use is associated with small to moderate deficits in some cognitive domains. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
INTRODUCTION: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a burdensome adverse event frequently associated with chemotherapy treatment of cancer. Evidence suggests that cannabinoid CB2 receptors are present in brainstem neurons, and thus, there may exist a role for cannabinoids to counter CINV. The aim of this paper is to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of oral cannabinoids compared with other treatments as documented in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
METHODS: A literature search was conducted using Ovid MEDLINE up until December 31, 2018; Embase Classic and Embase up until 2018 week 53; and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up until November 2018. Study data were extracted and included in this meta-analysis if they reported on at least one of the following efficacy endpoints: no nausea and no vomiting, no nausea, and no vomiting. The Mantel-Haenszel method and random effects analysis model were used, to generate odds ratio (OR) and accompanying 95% confidence intervals (CI).
RESULTS: In the setting of prophylactic treatment against both nausea and vomiting, oral cannabinoid was more efficacious than placebo or other studied antiemetic treatments. When controlling for vomiting, oral cannabinoid was equally as efficacious as others. Against nausea, oral cannabinoid was equally as effective as other treatments. A greater percentage of patients administered oral cannabinoid for CINV experienced dysphoria, euphoria, and sedation.
CONCLUSION: Although there exists some evidence suggesting that oral cannabinoids may have a role in controlling for emesis from a neurophysiological perspective, these conclusions are currently not mirrored in the published RCTs to date. However, there exists only a limited number of RCTs, comparisons with older treatment regimens and a lack of standard reporting practice across published literature. Further RCTs should investigate the efficacy and safety of oral cannabinoids, to secure a better picture of the efficacy of oral cannabinoids against CINV.
Background: Pain is the most frequent indication for which medical cannabis treatment is sought.Objectives: The clinical potential of cannabis and cannabis-derived products (CDPs) relies on their efficacy to treat an indication and potential adverse effects that impact outcomes, including abuse liability and neurocognitive effects. To ascertain the extent to which these effects impact therapeutic utility, studies investigating cannabis and CDPs for pain were reviewed for analgesic efficacy and assessments of abuse liability and neurocognitive effects.Methods: A comprehensive review of placebo-controlled studies investigating cannabis and CDP analgesia was performed. Methods and findings related to adverse effects, abuse liability, and neurocognitive effects were extracted.Results: Thirty-eight studies were reviewed; 29 assessed cannabis and CDPs for chronic pain, 1 for acute pain, and 8 used experimental pain tests. Most studies ascertained adverse effects through self-report (N = 27). Fewer studies specifically probed abuse liability (N = 7) and cognitive and psychomotor effects (N = 12). Many studies related to chronic and experimental pain (N = 18 and N = 5, respectively) found cannabis and CDPs to reduce pain. Overall, adverse effects were mild to moderate, and dose-related. Studies investigating the impact of cannabis and CDPs on abuse liability and neurocognitive endpoints were mostly limited to inhaled administration and confirmed dose-related effects.Conclusion: Few studies investigating cannabis and CDP analgesia assess abuse liability and cognitive endpoints, adverse effects that impact the long-term clinical utility of these drugs. Future studies should include these measures to optimize research and clinical care related to cannabis-based therapeutics.
IMPORTANCE: Marijuana use is common and growing in the United States amid a trend toward legalization. Exposure to tobacco smoke is a well-described preventable cause of many cancers; the association of marijuana use with the development of cancer is not clear.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the association of marijuana use with cancer development.
DATA SOURCES: A search of PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library was conducted on June 11, 2018, and updated on April 30, 2019. A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies published from January 1, 1973, to April 30, 2019, and references of included studies were performed, with data analyzed from January 2 through October 4, 2019.
STUDY SELECTION: English-language studies involving adult marijuana users and reporting cancer development. The search strategy contained the following 2 concepts linked together with the AND operator: marijuana OR marihuana OR tetrahydrocannabinol OR cannabinoid OR cannabis; AND cancer OR malignancy OR carcinoma OR tumor OR neoplasm.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently reviewed titles, abstracts, and full-text articles; 3 reviewers independently assessed study characteristics and graded evidence strength by consensus.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Rates of cancer in marijuana users, with ever use defined as at least 1 joint-year exposure (equivalent to 1 joint per day for 1 year), compared with nonusers. Meta-analysis was conducted if there were at least 2 studies of the same design addressing the same cancer without high risk of bias when heterogeneity was low to moderate for the following 4 cancers: lung, head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, oral squamous cell carcinoma, and testicular germ cell tumor (TGCT), with comparisons expressed as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs.
RESULTS: Twenty-five English-language studies (19 case-control, 5 cohort, and 1 cross-sectional) were included; few studies (n = 2) were at low risk of bias. In pooled analysis of case-control studies, ever use of marijuana was not associated with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma or oral cancer. In pooled analysis of 3 case-control studies, more than 10 years of marijuana use (joint-years not reported) was associated with TGCT (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.03-1.81; P = .03; I2 = 0%) and nonseminoma TGCT (OR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.10-3.11; P = .04; I2 = 0%). Evaluations of ever use generally found no association with cancers, but exposure levels were low and poorly defined. Findings for lung cancer were mixed, confounded by few marijuana-only smokers, poor exposure assessment, and inadequate adjustment; meta-analysis was not performed for several outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Low-strength evidence suggests that smoking marijuana is associated with developing TGCT; its association with other cancers and the consequences of higher levels of use are unclear. Long-term studies in marijuana-only smokers would improve understanding of marijuana's association with lung, oral, and other cancers.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO identifier: CRD42018102457.
This review summarizes studies that examined the effectiveness of cannabinoids in treating spasticity, with a focus on understanding the relevance of the existing evidence to paediatric populations. MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify studies that examined the use of cannabinoids in spasticity. We identified 32 studies in adult and paediatric populations. Results were summarized by condition, with adult and paediatric studies considered separately. There is evidence from randomized controlled clinical trials that cannabinoids are more effective than placebo in reducing symptoms of spasticity in adults with multiple sclerosis. Most positive effects were based on patient-rated rather than clinician-rated measures, were modest in size, and should be considered in the context of the narrow therapeutic index of cannabinoids for spasticity and adverse effects. There were comparatively few, and no large studies, of spasticity in conditions other than multiple sclerosis. Few studies have been conducted in paediatric populations. Paediatric studies of spasticity provide low quality evidence and are inadequate to inform clinical practice. Cannabinoids have modest efficacy in reducing muscle spasticity in adults with multiple sclerosis. There is limited evidence of efficacy for cannabinoid use in other conditions, particularly in paediatric populations. Studies in paediatric populations have been of low quality and are insufficient to inform clinical practice.
BACKGROUND: Normalisation of medicinal and recreational marijuana use has increased the importance of fully understanding effects of marijuana use on individual-and population-level health, including prenatal exposure effects on child development. We undertook a systematic review of the literature to examine the long-term effects of prenatal marijuana exposure on neuropsychological function in children aged 1-11 years.
METHODS: Primary research publications were searched from Medline, Embase, PsychInfo, CINAHL EbscoHost, Cochrane Library, Global Health and ERIC (1980-2018). Eligible articles documented neuropsychological outcomes in children 1-11 years who had been prenatally exposed to marijuana. Studies of exposure to multiple prenatal drugs were included if results for marijuana exposure were reported separately from other substances. Data abstraction was independently performed by two reviewers using a standardised protocol.
RESULTS: The eligible articles (n = 21) on data from seven independent longitudinal studies had high quality based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Some analyses found associations (P < 0.05) between prenatal marijuana exposure and decreased performance on memory, impulse control, problem-solving, quantitative reasoning, verbal development and visual analysis tests; as well as increased performance on attention and global motion perception tests. Limitations included concurrent use of other substances among study participants, potential under-reporting and publication biases, non-generalisable samples and limited published results preventing direct comparison of analyses.
CONCLUSIONS: The specific effects of prenatal marijuana exposure remain unclear and warrant further research. The larger number of neuropsychological domains that exhibit decreased versus increased psychological and behavioural functions suggests that exposure to marijuana may be harmful for brain development and function.
Background: Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the main intoxicating component of cannabis, can cause cognitive and psychomotor impairment. Whether this impairment is still present many hours or even days after THC use requires clarification. Possible "next day" effects are of major significance in safety-sensitive workplaces. We therefore conducted a systematic review of studies investigating the "next day" effects of THC.
METHODS:
Studies that measured performance on safety-sensitive tasks (e.g., driving, flying) and/or neuropsychological tests >8 h after THC (or cannabis) use using interventional designs were identified by searching two online databases from inception until March 28, 2022. Risk of bias (RoB) was evaluated using the relevant Cochrane tools. Results were described in terms of whether THC had a significant effect on performance relative to the primary comparator (i.e., placebo or baseline, as appropriate).
RESULTS:
Twenty studies (n=458) involving 345 performance tests were reviewed. Most studies administered a single dose of THC (median [interquartile range]: 16 [11-26] mg) and assessed performance between >12 and 24 h post-treatment. N=209/345 tests conducted across 16 published studies showed no "next day" effects of THC. Nine of these 16 studies used randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled designs. Half (N=8) had "some" RoB, and half (N=8) had a "high" RoB. Notably, N=88 of these 209 tests failed to demonstrate "acute" (i.e., <8 h post-treatment) THC-induced impairment. N=12/345 tests conducted across five published studies indicated negative (i.e., impairing) "next day" effects of THC. None of these five studies used randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled designs and all were published >18 years ago (four, >30 years ago). Three had "some" RoB, and two had a "high" RoB. A further N=121/345 tests indicated "unclear" "next day" effects of THC with insufficient information provided to assess outcomes. The remaining N=3/345 tests indicated positive (i.e., enhancing) "next day" effects of THC.
CONCLUSIONS:
Some lower quality studies have reported "next day" effects of THC on cognitive function and safety-sensitive tasks. However, most studies, including some of higher quality, have found no such effect. Overall, it appears that there is limited scientific evidence to support the assertion that cannabis use impairs "next day" performance. Further studies involving improved methodologies are required to better address this issue.
